Therefore, the argument that Haj is prevented from filing a lawsuit for the regulation of his rights, based on the judgments given in the previous proceeding, contradicts what was explicitly stated in the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the previous proceeding.
- Third, the reason for which the lawsuit filed by some of the defendants against Haj was accepted, lies in the fact that the transaction according to which Haj would receive property in the real estate could not be carried out On a specific lot. It is clear that the granting of rights in the Hajj does not negate or contradict the determination that Hajj cannot be given a specific plot. On the other hand, In other words, Claim The defense, according to which I had no left Jereys rights in real estate, which is in forceN Block Hajj's lawsuit, not decided by the court In court District Court and not in the Supreme Court - in the previous proceeding, and therefore it is now unjust to block Hajj from bringing his case before the court, and to request that this argument be decided. Therefore, the rule of court action should not be applied, since the relevant arguments were not decided by the court in the previous proceeding, and the rationale of estoppel of cause of action does not apply in our case.
- Fourth, And as stated above, Not all of the necessary parties were parties to the previous proceeding. This was not the case with Sister Rahab, who transferred her rights to Jereis after the sale transaction. This is how the local council was not added that it was claimed that it purchased the roads from the brothers, in a transaction prior to the sale transaction. It should be emphasized that this omission, with regard to the failure to join the required parties, is at the door of the defendants here who filed the previous proceeding, and not at the door of Hajj, who was a defendant in that proceeding. In the Civil Appeal Authority 1491/24 Gabbay v. Capitolnik (Benevo, May 13, 2024) The Supreme Court has once again clarified the importance of joining all the necessary parties in claims for declaratory relief regarding property rights in real estate. This ruling was given in connection with a discussion of the results of a judgment given in matters of land ownership, without all the necessary parties that may be harmed by the judgment being attached. The court noted the distinction between a claim for the issuance of a judgment and a claim for the issuance of a judgment. Regarding claims for a declaration of ownership of property, this is the Hefetza ruling:
"The situation is different when it comes to an In Rem ruling. In contrast to "gevra" rulings, the power of such rulings, which regulate the legal status of an object or person, is good in relation to all scholars. For example, if in a dispute between Reuven and Shimon it is determined that an object belongs to Shimon, it means that the object does not belong to Reuven; But it also does not belong to the Levite, nor does it belong to the rest of the world. For this reason, the applicability of the "bottom line" of the arbitrary judgment will always extend beyond the parties who were parties to the legal proceeding (Civil Appeal 143/51 Mayor of Ramat Gan v. Pardes Yanai Ltd., IsrSC 1804, 1815 (1956); Salzman, at pp. 505-506; Rosen-Zvi, at pp. 947-949). This is also the reason for the extreme care taken in arbitrary proceedings with respect to the nature of the parties to the proceeding. In addition to the usual rule according to which parties who are likely to be harmed by its results must be added to the proceeding, the legislature added and sometimes prescribed procedures that must be taken in order to bring the proceeding to the attention of potential stakeholders - such as the publication of applications for an inheritance order or a probate order (Regulation 17 of the Inheritance Regulations, 5758-1998). For additional examples, see: Salzman, pp. 508-509. Compare also toCivil Appeal Authority 7653/23 Kirsch v. Yitzhak Amer - Construction and Investment Company Ltd., paragraph 12 [Nevo] (January 28, 2024), according to which in arbitrary claims, extreme care must be taken in the presentation of court rulings)."
Therefore, it was ruled in the same matter that the law of a judgment given in a proceeding declaring ownership of the land, and afterwards it turns out that not all the parties who are liable to be harmed were added to it, is null and void (see also: Civil Appeal Authority 9041/05 "Imrei Chaim" Registered Association v. Wiesel, para. 9 (Nevo, September 6, 2007)). With this in mind, great care must be taken to include all the necessary litigants in a claim for a declaration of ownership of the land. As it was ruled: